[PD] PiDiP's legal status
Marc Lavallée
marc at hacklava.net
Thu Jan 19 16:52:17 CET 2006
Le 18 Janvier 2006 03:52, Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
> Maybe it's time to ask for advice from the Free Software Foundation
> and/or other similar organisms?
I did. Two times. Here's the answers I received from the FSF.
12 days ago:
-------------------------------------------------------
Subject: [gnu.org #265332] Fwd: political terms in free software licenses
Date: 7 Janvier 2006 20:20
From: "Zak Greant via RT" <licensing at fsf.org>
To: (my email address)
Dear Marc,
> I read this page about political terms in free software licenses :
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050211.html
>
> I'm questionning the validity of a free software license; It's a
> "Standard
> Improved BSD License", with this statement added at the beginning:
> "NOT FOR MILITARY OR REPRESSIVE USE !!!"
>
> Does including this comment in the license make it incompatible with
> the GPL
> or any other free software license?
This statement conflicts with the first freedom of the Free Software
definition:
"The freedom to run the program, for any purpose"
You can read the full Free Software definition here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
--
Zak Greant
IMPORTANT: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. IN MANY JURISDICTIONS, LEGAL
ADVICE MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED TO YOU BY A LAWYER LICENSED TO PRACTICE
IN THE JURISDICTION AND WHO HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY RETAINED TO PROVIDE
LEGAL SERVICES TO YOU.
-------------------------------------------------------
Then this morning:
-------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #265332] Fwd: political terms in free software
licenses
Date: 19 Janvier 2006 08:50
From: "Zak Greant via RT" <licensing at fsf.org>
To: (my email address)
On Jan 17, 2006, at 20:40EST (CA), Marc Lavallée via RT wrote:
> Hello again Zak.
>
> This software (PiDiP) includes source code from another GPL software
> (effecTV). The first version of PiDiP was a port of effecTV,
> compiled as
> a plugin for a multimedia software (PureData). Does PiDiP
> automatically
> inherit the GPL from effecTV? If not, is the PiDiP license (the new
> SIBSD with the political comment) valid, even if it's not free?
>
> Thanks again for your help.
If PiDiP is derived from the GPL-licensed effecTV software, then
PiDiP should also be GPL licensed (instead of BSD licensed with a non-
Free modification). The licensing seems invalid.
Cheers!
--
zak
-------------------------------------------------------
Le 18 Janvier 2006 14:58, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
> From my research, I think the issue is settled: PiDiP must be available
> under the GNU GPL because of PiDiP's dependecies on PDP and effectv.
Yep!
Le 18 Janvier 2006 13:35, Kyle Klipowicz a écrit :
> Isn't it possible that what Yves inserted into his license was really
> just a joke? Frank's comment about the point of contention being
> listed before the GNU preamble supports this.
That's more like a political and/or artistic statement in the form of an
invalid license. Note that the license of the Debian package is GPL, and
that its maintainer (Pablo Martín) created a derivative from the latest
version (with a cool xine extension).
--
Marc
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list